Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Scientific Racism & Eugenics News and Discussion

Racism News Science Discussion Eugenics Darwinism Racial Superiority Racial Inferiority

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

 

 

Such as? Love without procreation is entirely hedonistic in its' nature.

 

Your point being...

 

 

 

I never said the use of force will be welcomed by those who are the victims of that force, the weak don't get a say in this at all. 

 

Which is what is dystopian about it.  

 

In addition to which that they are weak does not mean that they are incapable of expressing an opinion.  Other, more powerful voices, would certainly be willing to rise to their defense, especially if those powerful voices have a well developed sense of justice.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#42
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

Your point being...

You said "Not "only because."  It has far greater use value that that." ​Then I reiterated my statement, what was your point?

 

 

Which is what is dystopian about it.  

 

In addition to which that they are weak does not mean that they are incapable of expressing an opinion.  Other, more powerful voices, would certainly be willing to rise to their defense, especially if those powerful voices have a well developed sense of justice.

Their opinions' don't matter, neither do the opinions of the people trying to "rise to their defence", what matters is posterity, we need to make sure future children aren't born with defects and disabilities.

 

You Americans are so obsessed with "Their Opinions", "Their natural rights", "The Rights of all men", "All men are born equal". I am not advocating Eugenics for America, I'm advocating for Eugenics to keep the whole world healthy. I don't care at all if you Americans want your societies to degenerate (which is what is happening right now), you guys can destroy yourselves as much as you want.

 

With Eugenics, we could save so much money currently being spent on disabled people, all that money could be invested into science, NASA, the money could be even distributed to poor people, or the homeless, it could be used to partially pay for Universal Healthcare, it could be used for the greater good, but you insist on defending these weak people, why? Why defend a minority when you could help the totality?



#43
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

 

 

You said "Not "only because."  It has far greater use value that that." ​Then I reiterated my statement, what was your point?

 

That love has a far greater use value than simply fostering procreation.

 

 

Their opinions' don't matter, neither do the opinions of the people trying to "rise to their defence", what matters is posterity, we need to make sure future children aren't born with defects and disabilities.

 

 

 

"Posterity" would probably be ashamed that we sunk to such a level of moral depravity.

 

 

 

You Americans are so obsessed with "Their Opinions", "Their natural rights", "The Rights of all men", "All men are born equal". I am not advocating Eugenics for America, 

 

 

Good.  I am certain we will want to opt out of that scheme.

 

 

 

With Eugenics, we could save so much money currently being spent on disabled people, all that money could be invested into science, NASA, the money could be even distributed to poor people, or the homeless, it could be used to partially pay for Universal Healthcare, it could be used for the greater good, but you insist on defending these weak people, why? Why defend a minority when you could help the totality?

 

We do not have a shortage of investment capital available in our society.  What we lack is a proper distribution of wealth and income that would foster greater demand and thus a better utilization of resources.  Nothing would be a better utilization of resources that to help the poor and the disabled.  Of course, if you are so weak that you cannot lift a finger to help such people, then perhaps you are the one in need. I suspect you have no understanding of just what it is that you really need.


  • Jakob likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#44
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,353 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow
This thread really is a new low...

Happy 2018, everyone...
  • Jakob likes this
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen

#45
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

@Pisiu369,

 

Here, perhaps this will help you to sort out your needs:

 

 

 

maslow.jpg

 

Edit: Source: https://simplypsycho...org/maslow.html


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#46
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

This thread really is a new low...

Happy 2018, everyone...

 

Happy 2018.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#47
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

That love has a far greater use value than simply fostering procreation.

Such as? Compassion? Compassion doesn't help a disabled person achieve his potential, if he even has a potential.

 

"Posterity" would probably be ashamed that we sunk to such a level of moral depravity.

Really? You Americans did Eugenics in the early 1900's, I don't see anyone apologising for or being ashamed of that. Either way, if Posterity had the same Eugenic values as us in the present, they would not look down on us, but look up to us for saving them from a generation of practically useless human beings.

 

Good.  I am certain we will want to opt out of that scheme.

Good.

 

 

We do not have a shortage of investment capital available in our society.  What we lack is a proper distribution of wealth and income that would foster greater demand and thus a better utilization of resources.  Nothing would be a better utilization of resources that to help the poor and the disabled.  Of course, if you are so weak that you cannot lift a finger to help such people, then perhaps you are the one in need. I suspect you have no understanding of just what it is that you really need.

I never said we have a shortage of investment capital, but you can't have a surplus either, there is always money to be invested into something, whether is scientific research or universal healthcare. "Nothing would be a better utilization of resources that to help the poor and the disabled". So you think instead of investing long term in scientific research, we should help some disabled people for no reason except for "It's the right time to do!" What a waste of resources. 

 

Of course, if you are so weak that you cannot lift a finger to help such people, then perhaps you are the one in need. I suspect you have no understanding of just what it is that you really need.

Undeniably, when I begin to pay taxes, I will be supporting Disabled people, whether I want to or not. What is it that I am exactly I need of? It's not that I don't want to help people, it's just that I'd rather my and other people's money go towards long term important and much more life saving thinks like scientific research and universal healthcare, rather than just helping disabled people's achieve nothing.



#48
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

This thread really is a new low...

Happy 2018, everyone...

 

Says the one who thinks we should kill all rich people.



#49
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

@Pisiu369,

 

Here, perhaps this will help you to sort out your needs:

 

 

 

maslow.jpg

 

Edit: Source: https://simplypsycho...org/maslow.html

 

So why have you resulted to personal insults now? First Transcending and now you, it achieves nothing. Instead of continuing this debate (or argument if you like) with me, you just lower yourself to personal insults.



#50
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,353 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow

@Pisiu369,
 
Here, perhaps this will help you to sort out your needs:
 
 
 
maslow.jpg
 
Edit: Source: https://simplypsycho...org/maslow.html

 
So why have you resulted to personal insults now? First Transcending and now you, it achieves nothing. Instead of continuing this debate (or argument if you like) with me, you just lower yourself to personal insults.

You've done nothing but insult a community of individuals who already face orders of magnitudes more adversity than you'd ever know.

X
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen

#51
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

@Pisiu369,
 
Here, perhaps this will help you to sort out your needs:
 
 
 maslow.jpg
 
Edit: Source: https://simplypsycho...org/maslow.html

 
So why have you resulted to personal insults now? First Transcending and now you, it achieves nothing. Instead of continuing this debate (or argument if you like) with me, you just lower yourself to personal insults.

You've done nothing but insult a community of individuals who already face orders of magnitudes more adversity than you'd ever know.
X

No, I've shown my opinion and have explained it correctly. Everyone has an opinion that would insult some community some where, that doesn't matter at all.

#52
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
Childish troll is childish troll

#53
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Childish troll is childish troll


And who would that be?

#54
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

I give Pisiu that he has stated his beliefs respectfully. I think you guys are being too hard and personal attacks do lower debate into a realm of irrationality. Fascism from my perspective is appalling, but considering that no one on this forum is going to become a fascist from Pisiu's comments, degrading his platform serves no purpose. His platform on this forum, is very unlikely to cause harm and should be given free reign to debate because of that. Perhaps instead people could continue to debate him with both sides aiming to learn something.


  • Pisiu369 likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#55
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
He's just stupid and lashing out because of who knows why. By giving his arguments credibility you just enable his childishness. Much better to mentally castrate his impact as he would do to others

#56
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

He's just stupid and lashing out because of who knows why. By giving his arguments credibility you just enable his childishness. Much better to mentally castrate his impact as he would do to others

What are you talking about? I'm generally trying to explain my views, I understand that because of their radicalness you don't believe them, but they are true, and nothing about this is childishness, do you think I would joke about sterilizing and euthanizing disabled people? No, it's a legitimate view of mine. 



#57
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

 

He's just stupid and lashing out because of who knows why. By giving his arguments credibility you just enable his childishness. Much better to mentally castrate his impact as he would do to others

What are you talking about? I'm generally trying to explain my views, I understand that because of their radicalness you don't believe them, but they are true, and nothing about this is childishness, do you think I would joke about sterilizing and euthanizing disabled people? No, it's a legitimate view of mine. 

 

 

It is also a legitimate view of mine that you do not understand hierarchy of needs or the fact that resources are available to address the needs of the handicapped. To say that is not to launch a personal attack, it is simply to address the arguments that you present. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#58
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

 

 

 never said we have a shortage of investment capital, but you can't have a surplus either, there is always money to be invested into something, whether is scientific research or universal healthcare. "Nothing would be a better utilization of resources that to help the poor and the disabled". So you think instead of investing long term in scientific research, we should help some disabled people for no reason except for "It's the right time to do!" What a waste of resources. 

 

 

You only consider that to be a waste of resources because you yourself do not suffer from the type of handicap that you discuss.  Yes, at the level of personal resources, I stand by my statement that nothing would be a better utilization of resources.  Of course that is in the context of their being abundant resources available, meaning that it is not an either or situation. We can do long term scientific research as well as help disabled people.  In fact, we can do long term scientific research focused on helping of disabled people.  Like other forms of scientific research, that is liable to return results that apply well beyond just helping the handicapped.  

 

Under your approach, we will need to re-engineer society in order to accommodate your dystopian notions regarding the imagined need for forced sterilization. Under my approach, we simply divert some resources from other things to assisting the handicapped. Such diversion can include scientific research on the things that biologically handicap people.   That does not involve diversion of 100% of our resources.  Just what is needed to assist handicapped people.  

 

You take it as a personal insult that I ask you to review Maslow's hierarchy of needs. 

 

Then you write:

 

 

 

Everyone has an opinion that would insult some community some where, that doesn't matter at all

 

So, my opinion insults you. So be it. Then don't complain about how we find your opinion insulting to the handicapped or to those who would defend the rights of the handicapped.  That is a double standard.  


  • Unity likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#59
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,395 posts

 

 

Undeniably, when I begin to pay taxes, I will be supporting Disabled people, whether I want to or not. What is it that I am exactly I need of? It's not that I don't want to help people, it's just that I'd rather my and other people's money go towards long term important and much more life saving thinks like scientific research and universal healthcare, rather than just helping disabled people's achieve nothing.

 

 

Universal health care ought to mean universal health care for all, including the handicapped.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#60
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,353 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow
Im starting work in aged care and disability next month and reading this just shows how far we as a species we have to go. Pisiu, as a fellow australian, you really should be proud to live in a country that has a system in place to help the lives of those who , through no fault of their own, were born with such disadvantages. The NDIS is blessing to the differently -abled in our country. Maybe volunteer at a care facility and discover the richness in the lives and minds of these wonderful people. X
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Racism, News, Science, Discussion, Eugenics, Darwinism, Racial Superiority, Racial Inferiority

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users